Iron Mike Tomczak
Footballguy
Im still thinking the Bears of 06 worst team to ever appear. No offense whatsoever.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Worst team to ever Appear in a Superbowl (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Iron Mike Tomczak
- Start date
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
I have absolutely no idea what the 1998 Falcons are doing on this list. They're certainly one of the best Super Bowl losing teams of all time, not the worst.
Iron Mike Tomczak
Footballguy
Someone wanted to see them on the list in a previous post so I put them on. I also dont agree.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
The omission of the '96 Patriots is also surprising. Even Patriots fans acknolwedge that was a bad team.
The 1992 Bills maybe and certainly a case could be made for the 93 Bills, but the 90 and 91 Bills were excellent SB losers.
The 1992 Bills maybe and certainly a case could be made for the 93 Bills, but the 90 and 91 Bills were excellent SB losers.
Islander
Footballguy
I voted 1994 Chargers. I don't think the 2006 Bears belong on the list. Offense not so good, but not that bad nonetheless (decent OL, decent RBs, decent WRs, decent TE).
I would love to see the opposite poll - worst SB winner. 2005 Steelers would be very high on my list, if not on top.
I would love to see the opposite poll - worst SB winner. 2005 Steelers would be very high on my list, if not on top.
Islander
Footballguy
1993 Bills were not very good, but were playing inspired in the playoffs after the Houston comeback, so it's hard to see them as a "bad" SB loser. I would be more inclined to go with the 1992 Bills than the 1993 Bills if I had to pick one of the 4 Bills teams.
Iron Mike Tomczak
Footballguy
Yea, i think winning 30 games in two years is the sign of a terrible team.
PsychoMan
Footballguy
How many games have the Bears won the past 2 years? Not too far from 30 and you call them hands down the worst. It's fine if you say they belong on the list, but hands down the worst is crazy.ETA - my vote goes to the Giants
Last edited by a moderator:
Tough As Nails
Glave Master
That Giants team with Kerry Collins at the helm wouldn't beat any of the other teams on the list.
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
I do not acknowledge this. That offense was pretty sick. They were not as good as the Packers, but had JUST scored via a Kieth Buyers TD I believe to get back into the game when the Packers returned the next kickoff for a TD.
Anyway, not as good as those Packers, but a "bad team"? I don't think so.
plymkr
Footballguy
The 2006 Bears are nothing more than a product of a weak schedule. I know that there is nothing that can be done about who they play, but the reason they were there was because of 2 games vs. their weak division opponents and their other schedule vs. the weak NFC west. All fo this allowed for an inflated record and home field advantage, which is the key to getting to any Super Bowl. With out HFA the Bears would have been nothing more than an afterthought.
videoguy505
Footballguy
Any team that goes in a 12 point dog, and manages to lose 55-10 is pretty bad.
pats3in4
Footballguy
1985 Pats. 11-5 wildcard team. The team relied on its running game and opportunistic (read: turnover-creating) defense and avoided at all costs of putting the game in Tony Eason's hands. The strategy worked well in the postseason against the Jets (with an awful Ken O'Brien leading that offense and 4 turnovers), the Raiders (with an awful Marc Wilson leading that offense and 6 turnovers) and the Dolphins (250 yards rushing for the Pats and 6 Dolphins turnovers). No way was that strategy going to work against Chicago and it showed in the 46-10 score. Any team that's afraid to put the game in their QB's hands is just waiting to get their hat handed to them.
I think the 1994 Chargers are the runner up. Honorable mention goes to the 2000 Giants and 2006 Bears (both of these teams would have lost to multiple AFC playoff entrants each year).
I think the 1994 Chargers are the runner up. Honorable mention goes to the 2000 Giants and 2006 Bears (both of these teams would have lost to multiple AFC playoff entrants each year).
Brock Middlebrook
Footballguy
The 2006 bears do not even belong on this list.
phthalatemagic
Footballguy
What other super bowl losers would the 85 Patriots beat?
Last edited by a moderator:
Not as bad as the 1985 edition. Remember, the 1996 Packers are in the top five or ten among SB champs, and the Patriots played them relatively evenly in all phases of the game except special teams.Though the 1996 team was the luckiest of the Patriots Super Bowl teams. If Jacksonville hadn't upset the #1 Broncos, I don't think the Pats would have been able to win in Denver for the AFC Championship.
#1 seeds should not be on the list.
Also, the Bears "weak" schedule had on e fo the most brutal runs on it out of any schedule I've seen. Three weeks on the road GIants/Jets/Patriots. Just being on the road is hard enough, but to have 3 playoff tems in a row is not "easy".
Also, the Bears "weak" schedule had on e fo the most brutal runs on it out of any schedule I've seen. Three weeks on the road GIants/Jets/Patriots. Just being on the road is hard enough, but to have 3 playoff tems in a row is not "easy".
Last edited by a moderator:
DanFouts
Footballguy
You leave Stan out of this.....
Last edited by a moderator:
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Probably not. I think the Pats played fine in the Super Bowl, but that doesn't ignore that they ranked 19th in yards per pass and 26th in yards per rush during the regular season. Curtis Martin was not yet "Curtis Martin", and averaged just 3.6 YPC that season. Bledsoe had an 83.7 QB Rating, which is pretty mediocre.For all the insults hurled at the '85 team, the Patriots ranked in the top six in yards per pass, yards per pass allowed and yards per run allowed, and weren't a bad running team either. New England also won 12 out of 14 games in one stretch, losing both contests by a field goal.Awful performance in the SB, and a complete lack of big time names. But Fryar and especially Morgan were incredible deep threats, and Craig James was a good RB in those days.
The Bears won 26 and you want to dock them for some reason...
H.K.
Footballguy
Rest easy, Eason & Horsecollar Grogan just passed him
Tough As Nails
Glave Master
2nd in the league in points scored. 15th in yards.Iron Mike Tomczak said:
That's an above average offense.
Bull Dozier
Footballguy
I did a very quick statistical analysis and eliminated a number of these teams based on their rankings. I think any team that was top ten in scoring and points allowed shouldn't even be considered (bears were #2 and #3 respectively this year). That excludes the following (scoring rank and points allowed rank):
'84 Dolphins (1-7)
'85 Patriots (10-6)
'87 Broncos (4-7)
'89 Broncos (9-1)
'90 Bills (1-6)
'93 Bills (7-5)
'94 Chargers (5-9)
'98 Falcons (4-4)
'02 Raiders (2-6)
'05 Seahawks (1-7)
'06 Bears (2-3)
That leaves a bunch of offensive teams with defensive shortcomings:
'86 Broncos (6-15)
'88 Bengals (1-17)
'91 Bills (2-19)
'92 Bills (3-14)
'99 Titans (7-15)
and a couple of defensive teams with weak offenses:
'00 Giants (15-5)
'03 Panthers (15-10)
Personally, I'd further eliminate the Denver and Buffalo teams, just because of what they respectively did over 4 year periods of time (3 SB's for the Broncos, 4 for the Bills).
I'm also eliminating the '88 Bengals, and their #1 scoring offense.
That leaves the Titans, Giants, and Panthers. The Panthers had a multi-faceted offense with Delhomme throwing to Smith, and Davis getting 1400+ yards, so I'd take them over the Giants who look similar on paper.
The Titans were supposedly a better team than the Giants offensively, but Kevin Dyson as a leading receiver does not impress. The Giants had the #5 scoring defense, had a QB with 3600+ yards, and a 1,000 yard receiver, neither of which the Titans had. Barber and Dayne outgained Eddie George as well.
In this deeply flawed non-scientific study, I go with the Titans.
'84 Dolphins (1-7)
'85 Patriots (10-6)
'87 Broncos (4-7)
'89 Broncos (9-1)
'90 Bills (1-6)
'93 Bills (7-5)
'94 Chargers (5-9)
'98 Falcons (4-4)
'02 Raiders (2-6)
'05 Seahawks (1-7)
'06 Bears (2-3)
That leaves a bunch of offensive teams with defensive shortcomings:
'86 Broncos (6-15)
'88 Bengals (1-17)
'91 Bills (2-19)
'92 Bills (3-14)
'99 Titans (7-15)
and a couple of defensive teams with weak offenses:
'00 Giants (15-5)
'03 Panthers (15-10)
Personally, I'd further eliminate the Denver and Buffalo teams, just because of what they respectively did over 4 year periods of time (3 SB's for the Broncos, 4 for the Bills).
I'm also eliminating the '88 Bengals, and their #1 scoring offense.
That leaves the Titans, Giants, and Panthers. The Panthers had a multi-faceted offense with Delhomme throwing to Smith, and Davis getting 1400+ yards, so I'd take them over the Giants who look similar on paper.
The Titans were supposedly a better team than the Giants offensively, but Kevin Dyson as a leading receiver does not impress. The Giants had the #5 scoring defense, had a QB with 3600+ yards, and a 1,000 yard receiver, neither of which the Titans had. Barber and Dayne outgained Eddie George as well.
In this deeply flawed non-scientific study, I go with the Titans.
'93 Bills had halftime lead and were outplaying Cowboys. Unfortunately they couldn't recover from Thurm's fumble. Team could end up with 5-6 HOFers along with HOF coach - hard to consider them among worst.I'll take 85 Pats.
MarshallRob
Footballguy
That's a big gap between scoring and yards. Is it because the Bears scored so many points on defense and special teams? (I'm genuinely curious).
PsychoMan
Footballguy
Maybe flawed, but not as flawed as the logic used by 17% of the voters who picked the 2006 Bears (2nd in scoring, 3rd in points allowed) simply because Rex Grossman is an erratic QB.
PsychoMan
Footballguy
Even if it is, they're still an above average offense. "No offense whatsoever" does not apply to them. Anyway, I don't have the numbers to answer your question, but certainly, the special teams and defense forcing turnovers had a huge impact on the amount of points they scored.
Last edited by a moderator:
plymkr
Footballguy
It all comes down to scedule. Those numbers are inflated as well because of the cupcakes involved. If not for their schedule the Bears would have been an afterthought in the playoffs. The Seahawks last year were very over rated as well.
The Shizzle
Footballguy
That wasn't a bad team.Bledsoe: 4086yds, 27 TDs, 15 INT
C Martin: 1152 yds, 14 TDs
T Glenn: 90-1132-6
B Coates: 62-682-9
A Vinatieri: 120 points
They averaged 26ppg on offense
and gave up 19ppg.
Last edited by a moderator:
H.K.
Footballguy
Oh crap. Now the flood gates are open for Marino apologists to explain why the Dolphins defense wasn't any good despite that ranking.
MarshallRob
Footballguy
Maybe they missed the cutoff for whatever "modern era" is, but if not it's got to be the 1979 Rams. They had it all: worst record of any Super Bowl team (9-7), played in a weak conference, no decisive playoff wins, didn't finish in the top 10 in either scoring offense or scoring defense, and horrible quarterbacking (Haden, Ferragamo).
kevjones22
Footballguy
2005 Stealers. How are the Seahawks on this list they were by far the best team in the league in 2005 and were flat out robbed in the Superbowl.
dparker713
Footballguy
So, in the 41 years that the Super Bowl has been played, all of the options come from the 19th on. Of all time is not the same as the past 20 years.
fred_1_15301
Footballguy
You had your chance and blew it. Get over it man....
fred_1_15301
Footballguy
"by far the best team in the league"? If they played in the AFC, they may not have even made the playoffs......
thesurfshop19
Footballguy
While the post does say "ever" multiple times, it also clearly says "modern era" a couple times as well. Seemed like a pretty obvious explanation to me.
Wouldn't that support the theory, i.e. when Marino had a top 10 defense, he went to the Super Bowl? Not sure how the Dolphins defense ranking #7 the year that they went to the Super Bowl says anything other than when Marino had a solid defense, he was able to go to the Super Bowl.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
I object to the inclusion of the 2000 Giants on that list.
I'm raising the stakes right now. If this is a poker game, I'm shoving my chips to the middle of the table, I'm raising the ante. Anybody that wants in, get in. Anybody that wants out can get out.
This team is going to the playoffs. This team is going to the playoffs.
That single press conference led to the poker explosion of the 21st century.
Oh, I strenuously object indeed.
I'm raising the stakes right now. If this is a poker game, I'm shoving my chips to the middle of the table, I'm raising the ante. Anybody that wants in, get in. Anybody that wants out can get out.
This team is going to the playoffs. This team is going to the playoffs.
That single press conference led to the poker explosion of the 21st century.
Oh, I strenuously object indeed.
H.K.
Footballguy
No, it proves that one time was an anomaly for Marino to get to a Super Bowl at all. A common misconception regarding Marino's failure to win a SuperBowl is that he never had a good defense. This is a flawed argument. Marino never won the Super Bowl despite having many Top 10 defenses.Year PA
Wouldn't that support the theory, i.e. when Marino had a top 10 defense, he went to the Super Bowl? Not sure how the Dolphins defense ranking #7 the year that they went to the Super Bowl says anything other than when Marino had a solid defense, he was able to go to the Super Bowl.
1998 #1
1995 #10
1990 #4
1983 #1
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713
Footballguy
83 was his ROOKIE year, and he wasnt good enough to carry an offense by 95 and especially 98. So, left with 84, and 90. 84 he made the Super Bowl and 90 he lost to a very good Bills team that should have won the SB. Why exactly you decided to hijack this thread, I have no idea.No, it proves that one time was an anomaly for Marino to get to a Super Bowl at all. A common misconception regarding Marino's failure to win a SuperBowl is that he never had a good defense. This is a flawed argument. Marino never won the Super Bowl despite having many Top 10 defenses.Year PA
Wouldn't that support the theory, i.e. when Marino had a top 10 defense, he went to the Super Bowl? Not sure how the Dolphins defense ranking #7 the year that they went to the Super Bowl says anything other than when Marino had a solid defense, he was able to go to the Super Bowl.
1998 #1
1995 #10
1990 #4
1983 #1
Despyzer
Lousy Attention Whore
I'll defend this choice. I remember in the week leading up to thjis game thinking that the Falcons were a complete fluke and had no business playing in the championship. Look at the two or three years leading up to that season and the two or three years following that season and see if it doesn't appear that they were a huge fluke.Chase Stuart said:
Similar threads
